Mozilla 1.2 Beta Released 467
nberardi writes "Mozilla 1.2 Beta is out. Typeahead now works on Mac and Java now works on Jaguar. On Linux, the classic theme now picks up GTK native theme. See the release notes for more info."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Mozilla 1.2 Beta Released
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"I'm a mean green mother from outer space" -- Audrey II, The Little Shop of Horrors
If only... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:If only... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:If only... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:If only... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:If only... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:If only... (Score:5, Interesting)
We need an X protocol that works at widget level instead of pixel level. It'd be great if we could design
Client-side rendering, high-level application frameworks, *yuck*. Provide your high-level GUI stuff through an IPC channel and get out of the way. Let me have my own main loop back. Thank you.
Not a good idea (Score:4, Interesting)
If you don't believe GUI innovation happens, imagine if X had an enforced toolkit. It would be Athena, in black and white, with this 1-bit color so written into it that it would be impossible to remove, and everybody would marvel at the fact that you could set it to inverse video and all applications would agree. And defenders would claim that the fact that only the middle mouse button makes the scrollbars move was a *feature*. And any intelligent people would be laughing X off the planet!
Meanwhile, despite it's problems and pretty stupid design even for when it was invented, X is able to replicate interfaces designed 15 or more years after it was invented. This is because of the one intelligent decision they made, which was to keep the GUI widgets out of it!
Now X has problems. There really should be high-level graphics, at least similar to PostScript. Though also complex, it is far less complex than toolkit interfaces, and perhaps more importantly the set of graphics calls needed has been pretty stable for about 20 years. It may even make sense to add calls to "draw a nice raised box" or "clear this to the flat background color" which would do about 99% of what people want "themes" to do.
Also there is a bit of "toolkit" inside X: the "window manager" (even though a seperate process, but the communication protocols are there, and I know for a fact that it takes more code to communicate with the window manager than it would take to draw the window borders and handle moving and raising the windows myself). This also needs to be removed.
But I am serious that putting any kind of "toolkit" interface into the system in a very very bad idea.
Re:Xt (Score:3, Informative)
everyone forgot about Xt which works beautifully, and decided to make their own widget sets. this is really annoying when trying to embed Xt stuff into applications that use gtk or qt.
Xt was (is) just a toolkit framework on top of X, it does not change or modify the X protocol. Not only that, but Xt is a mediocre attempt at a toolkit, compared to modern standards: programming with Xt is not easy or intuitive and the on-screen widgets are not up to it.
Xt is not the answer, but a unified toolkit would be nice. I don't think it will happen though, not in this lifetime.
Re:Xt (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Xt (Score:3, Insightful)
No joke. To program directly with Xt is to hate your life. But I think you miss the point. Toolkits written *on top of* Xt, like Athena, OLIT, and Motif, are able to interoperate much better than say Qt and Gtk+. You can embed Athena widgets in a Motif app, or vice versa. It is not so easy with non-Xt toolkits. It helps if you think of Xt more like GDK than GTK+, like a sub-toolkit. Nobody writes apps completely with GDK, but *lots* of apps use it indirectly.
Re:If only... (Score:3, Informative)
Phoenix [slashdot.org] looks like it's going that way. I would be using it right now instead of the new Mozilla beta, but Phoenix doesn't let you disable third-party cookies (you can't check the checkbox that controls third-party cookies, at least not under Win2K). Once they get that fixed, though, I'll more than likely switch over to Phoenix. All I really want is a browser. I use Mutt [mutt.org] on my home Linux server for mail, so I don't need a mail client, and I use text editors (such as JOE [sourceforge.net] or Notepad) for editing HTML and CSS.
The thing that bugs me right now about Mozilla 1.2b is that the Pinball theme doesn't work (it didn't work in Phoenix, either, and for the same reason...it hasn't been updated). Classic is ghey (as you noted), and Modern isn't much better. Pinball ought to be the default. :-)
pinstripe theme (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know why.
First thing I noticed.
Link prefetching (Score:5, Interesting)
seems to mean that if you're reading page 1 of a multi-page article, page 2 will be loaded in the background. nice!
Re:Link prefetching (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Link prefetching (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a fair point - there is potential for abusem since the web page decides which "hints" to issue. Hopefully it'll eventually have an "enable prefetching for these sites"-type access control, similarly to the way it's done with cookies. Or a limit on the amount of data to prefetch.
Re:Link prefetching (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Link prefetching (Score:5, Informative)
1. Relying on obscure side-effects leads to bad code. For example, one could imagine a highly-optimized browser-rendering engine may choose not to read the bits of the image because they won't be visible. It's much better to have an XHTML tag that explicitly expresses the desired semantics and leave it to the presentation tool to properly figure out how to present.
2. Languages, standards, and practices evolve. For example, if my webages are XML interpreted by XSL stylesheets, do I really want to start embedding browser hints in my XML pages (or have my XSL stylesheet assume a browser is the client)?
3. How does the browser know not to start prefetching the image before it has loaded the main page? The prefetching FAQ says that prefetching uses an idle test to avoid doing harm. Embedded images can't readily be optimized by an idle test.
Re:Link prefetching (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Link prefetching (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Link prefetching (Score:3, Insightful)
This sounds cool, but it looks like the page author has to specify what has to be pre-fetched. Due to the relatively small marker-share of mozilla, there will probably be few sites which implement this feature. Too bad, because it looks like a nice feature to me.
Re:Link prefetching (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps that's good, although I'd like to see an option where you can choose to apply the feature to all links leading to HTML pages. This combined with a customizable maximum bandwidth restriction for the prefetching would be nice.
Re:Link prefetching (Score:4, Funny)
What would be great is if it could recognise if a page is of thumbnail images, and then automatically download the linked images. It would make browsing porn much quicker.
Re:Link prefetching (Score:5, Informative)
Leech (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't work as a user. Weird.
Re:Link prefetching (Score:5, Funny)
I still cherish the days with modem when I could see the goatse.cx pic load before my eyes and go away before it was done, now with DSL it's instant, and you think this is good?!
Re:Link prefetching (Score:3, Informative)
I see a use for a "load in background" click option. That could sometimes be very good. But "load all links"? No. Not even "load all links when selected". There's too much problem with hidden links already.
(Mind you, as long is Mozilla is the browser of a small minority this wouldn't be too bad. But once people start designing web pages to take advantage of this
Re:Link prefetching (Score:5, Interesting)
The style of web browsing I use is to load all the links I want to read in new windows by clicking on them with the middle button. Then they can be loading in the background while I read the first part of the article. It forms a kind of queue of pages to read, so when I've finished reading the first page I just close that window and go on to the next (which is ready instantly). The result is up to a hundred browser windows open at once - but I know that I'm not the only person who browses like this. Of course, it helps to have a browser which can open lots of windows without thrashing and slowing the machine to a crawl (like Dillo [cipsga.org.br]) or one that has tabbed browsing.
This style of following links can also work well with offline browsing and a proxy server designed for offline use like WWWOFFLE [demon.co.uk]. If you go online briefly and click on all the links you want to load, the proxy remembers to download them. Then a few minutes later you can go online again and all the pages will be loaded ASAP. Once they've loaded you can disconnect again and continue browsing. This makes the most sense for people whose internet access is metered (hmm, I wonder if something like this could work for palmtops).
But what I'd really like to see in a browser is an explicit 'to read' queue. When you click on a link with the middle button, it doesn't immediately open in a new window or tab but instead is added to the queue and starts downloading in the background. On the browser's toolbar there is a 'next page' button which goes to the next URL you have marked for reading.
Automatic prefetching of all links from a page, la wget -r, would be crazy for many heavily-linked sites. But you could have heuristics for it or specify particular sites where the link following should be more aggressive.
Re:Link prefetching (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Link prefetching (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that would be a very bad idea. Just right now in the navigation menu of the Slashdot page I'm viewing ("Post Comment"), there are 17 navigation links, plus the category links, etc. You cannot tell me that you'll be following all of those 17 links. Web sites (and probably ISPs as well) would not like such a feature due to the increased bandwidth costs they'd have to account for.
Also note that e.g. this page has a "log out" link that I really do not want to be automatically prefetched for obvious reasons. Granted, it contains a query-string so Mozilla would not prefetch it anyway, but I imagine there will also be web sites that have log out links without query strings in the URL. And there are lots of other actions that might be associated with following a link (think prefetched one-click-shopping).
The HTTP standard (RFC2616) states that "In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and HEAD methods SHOULD NOT have the significance of taking an action other than retrieval. These methods ought to be considered 'safe'", and if there are side effects, "the user did not request the side-effects, so therefore cannot be held accountable for them", but I wouldn't trust on web site administrators knowing this.
Re:Link prefetching (Score:4, Insightful)
And that, my friend, would be the end of the Internet. How many of the links on a website do you generally click? On slashdot, I think, it would at most be something like 5%. Let's say 5% of the users would enable this feature. Now their browsers start pre-fetching. Since they normally only click at most 5% of the links, preloading all would multiply their bandwith-usage by 20 times. So. Our 5% of the users uses 20 times as much bandwidth as they would without preloading. So the average bandwidth-usage for web-browsing would about double and that's with only 5% of the users having this feature enabled. Bye bye Internet. There's a reason this really simple to implement feature isn't there yet.
But.... combined with a reasonably large distributed network of caching proxy-servers, pre-fetching might be worth a try.
Re:Link prefetching (Score:5, Funny)
Cool, this could lead to preslashdoting.
Re:Link prefetching (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if that scenario is not likely, I think it's still an odd choice for Mozilla - the philosophy behind the idea seems to be "the browser knows best and will think for you behind the scenes." On the one hand that sounds great: the browser will anticipate my next move. On the other, that doesn't sound so great... My cable modem starts blinking when I think I'm not grabbing anything and I get suspicious.
Re:Link prefetching (Score:3, Informative)
> file, hosted on someone *else's* server as a
> "prefetch" item.
You can already do this by loading someone else's page into a hidden IFRAME.
Nothing new here. Move along.
Security danger (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of police investigations go by the browser cache to see where you have browsed. Now you are giving control over to the cache to someone else.
It would be simple to put a link in the page source to some kiddie porn or other illegal information. You would never see the link on the page and would have no way of knowing what had been inserted in your browser cache until the police inform you of how long you are going to be in jail. Sure, it is possible that the police won't use the browser cache as proof of guilt (don't bet on it), but that requires a lot of trust. And if they want to be technical about it, it is technically illegal to possess that information, no matter how it was acquired.
And the gain isn't at all proportional to the risk. No pre-caching is done except on sites specifically engineered for it. That means next to none.
Re:Security danger (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Link prefetching (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting idea, at least.
Re:Link prefetching (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Link prefetching (Score:3, Insightful)
Greetings,
Yeah, I stopped using that (Score:3, Insightful)
The Mozilla approach could actually work. If any designers ever decide to use it.
Re:New standard? (Score:3, Informative)
The link tag has been around for some time. It is used to describe releationships between documents. It was desinged by the w3c with extensibility in mind. The w3c leaves it up to the user agent to determine how to handle link data.
--Asa
GTK.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:GTK.... (Score:3, Informative)
Type ahead find is great (Score:5, Interesting)
Mime Types (Score:4, Insightful)
TWW
Re:CSS is still messed up :-( (Score:4, Interesting)
You visit sites that include the "information" in stylesheets? That's completely lame. The whole purpose of CSS is to separate the information from the style. If they're including the content in their style sheets then they're doing a lot more wrong than just serving the incorrect mime type.
--Asa
Filtering Old Mail (Score:4, Informative)
Well, Moz has it...filtering after the fact. Yay!
And Blizzard Represents.... (Score:5, Informative)
You must compile from source with --enable-xft and need fontconfig & xft2 package from www.fontconfig.org [fontconfig.org] and of course freetype2 from www.freetype.org [freetype.org]
Great thnx to Chris Blizzard for this!
Oh btw now HTML for controls & scrollbars use your native GTK theme widgets when classic theme is chosen.
You could do this before and without too much work (Score:4, Informative)
Here are the instructions [mozilla.org]
I have it working with Mandrake 9 and Mozilla 1.0.
Re:And Blizzard Represents.... (Score:3, Informative)
So ideally, with a RH8 rig anyhow, there's really no effort at all. Just wait for the Moz 1.2-final RPMS to come out, install them, and voila! Beautiful font rendering, with no hassle.
NO NEED TO RECOMPILE (Score:5, Informative)
Go here [ufies.org] and follow the instructions near the top of the page. Provided you have a recent version of FreeType2 on your system and some TrueType fonts for it to find (you have to uncomment a line or two in your unix.js file and tell it where to look), you'll be using antialiased fonts in no time. It looks great, and I wish they'd do it by default. One other thing--you may want to set unhinted to "false", as fonts appear to render better that way. Experiment with your system, though.
I've gotten this to work with the latest Mozilla and an otherwise fresh install of Redhat 8, plus a few
Probably a little redundant... (Score:5, Informative)
Great job to all who work on this effort. It is much appreciated by many in the computing field.
Cheers!
Fast releases (Score:4, Informative)
Too bad I'm still stuck to 1.0.1-r1 on my gentoo distro...
Re:Fast releases (Score:5, Informative)
You just need to unmask it by commenting out any mozilla lines in
Type-ahead Find (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Type-ahead Find (Score:3, Interesting)
A trivial point, maybe, and I certainly agree that Mozilla is innovative, but they weren't first in this case.
Re:Type-ahead Find (Score:3, Informative)
>didn't invent it. Internet Explorer for the Mac
>has had this for quite some time.
IE has had "fill in the box" type-ahead completion for years, but it sounds like what he's describing is different.
As an example, say you wanted to reply to this article. Instead of clicking on "Reply to This", you'd type enough of "reply" to jump the highlight to the link in the active window.
Not exactly the same thing. Not even remotely the same thing, even.
-l
Re:Type-ahead Find (Score:3, Informative)
And Emacs had it forever (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Type-ahead Find (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm therefore waiting expectantly for the feature that lets you turn this *off*. I'm sure it's nice for some people, but if you don't want it, being forced to have it is a pain. If there
Disabling it (Score:3, Informative)
Great News (Score:3, Insightful)
One question I have though - does it support GTK 1.2, or 2.0 (including the anti-aliasing fonts feature)?
Beware of GTK themes (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Beware of GTK themes (Score:4, Insightful)
Not because I don't like themes, but they are version specific for each release... and having to drop/change themes with each new release seems like more of a pain in the ass than it's worth.
Maybe someday in the not so distant future, they will build a theme utility that will adjust theme graphics to match the current GUI... but I doubt it.
Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
While the Mozilla project is an incredible piece of work, I have to question this feature. It appears that they've designed it so that a page designer or webmaster decides what is appropriate for prefetching or not. Still, if used inappropriately, this feature could lead to more information being transmitted across the internet that is either discarded or unwanted. In a worst-case scenario, an inexperienced web designer might routinely run into his bandwidth cap or unintentionally force users who have bandwidth caps to exhaust their allowance.
If you can only download 3GB per month over your cable modem, do you really want the designer of a page deciding that your browser needs to spend time downloading ads or useless images?
For some people, this could be really useful. For others, it could be a real pain. Team-Moz, if you have any consideration at all, please adjust the default configuration of Mozilla so that this feature is turned OFF.
Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Since, the employer of named designer pays for the bandwith, it surely will be used only at adequate places (Cost/Benefit).
Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't an inherent problem with prefetching. You can do this with regular HTML now. Consider:
Or, you might use CSS and set display:none (although I'm not sure if the browser will fetch the image in that case, but some might). Or, if you want to cause the client to load an html, use an iframe also with 0x0 dimensions. You can see there are ways to do exactly what you're worried about right now, in all browsers, without prefetching.
Jason.
Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea...(indeed) (Score:4, Funny)
First goatse.cx link modded informative.
It only prefetches _one_ item... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... (Score:3, Informative)
A Web page can already force you to download arbitrary files. For example, it can include a hidden IFRAME linked to some URL. This prefetching feature does not allow Web sites to do anything nefarious that they couldn't do before.
In fact, this prefetching feature is strictly better for users than hidden IFRAMEs or similar, mainly because prefetches are given bottom priority so they never interfere with your other Mozilla network activity.
Re:Link Pre-fetching is a baaad idea... (Score:4, Informative)
However, it only takes a minimal amount of underhandedness to start screwing people over. Banner ads are everywhere, and a large percentage of them are implemented by having a site drop in a block of code that references a CGI script on a server run by the company managing the distribution of banner ads. If the company running the banner distribution server decides that having their advertising clients' linked pages load faster is a valuable feature, all they would have to do is add the prefetch code to the output of their CGI script -- both Mozilla and IE will happily process a META tag in the body of an HTML document, even though by the specification, a META tag should occur only inside the HEAD tag block. So the user's network connection bandwidth would get usurped to prefetch the advertiser's web page, even if the user has no intention of clicking on the banner ad.
Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla (Score:4, Interesting)
Get the latest nightly build here! [mozilla.org]
Re:Mac OS X Users should ignore Mozilla (Score:4, Funny)
Chimera's great, I use it, but it has zero speed advantage over OmniWeb. Nil. Goosegg. And in my opinion, OmniWeb looks better.
There's no "right" app for OS X users. (Score:4, Informative)
Chimera is still pretty sparse on features. I use the nightlies, and run into a fair number of buggy builds. But it's quick, and sure looks like an OS X app. I use it far more than anything else.
KevinG, the guy who did the Pinstripe skin for Mozilla, was nice enough to compile Phoenix 0.3 for OS X. It's just an experiment, not part of the regular project. But damn if it doesn't work, and it has some very cool features. Even *more* OS X choices:
http://www.kmgerich.com/misc.html
This OS X build introduced me to Phoenix, which is now running on my Linux box. Kevin's page says his OS X build requires Jaguar, but I'm using it with 10.1.5 just fine.
Mozilla 1.2b feels very stable on OS X. It's not as fast as Chimera, nor is it as consistent with the Mac human interface standards. But it doesn't suck, and some users like working from within a suite. I know plenty of OS X guys who are more comfortable with Mozilla's mail than Mail.app. It's a matter of preference.
To me, Netscape 7.0 is heavy and gaudy. It has a spellcheck app, however, and isn't a bad choice for those who rely on the Netscape/Mozilla suite for email.
As for Omniweb, it's a great browser. A few more features than Chimera in its current state of development, though don't think it renders as well. Speed is a toss-up.
Every OS X user's needs are different. It's a great time to explore the platform, however. There's a browser for everyone. Run whatever you prefer, and support the community which surrounds it.
Thanks to all the developers who make my online experience more enjoyable. Your work isn't taken for granted.
Moz versus IE (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Moz versus IE (Score:3, Funny)
Question about typeaheadfind (Score:5, Insightful)
user_pref ("accessibility.typeaheadfind", false);
Or, to remove it completely, find all files in your installation subdirectories that match *typeaheadfind*, and delete those files.
Whilst it's great that stuff like this is being implemented, is anyone actually working on making a point and click interface to active/deactivate functionality rather than having to get users to resort to deleting or editing files?
If it's already there, for gods sake, why on earth do they insist on giving you these contrived instructions on how to deactivate it?
If the aim of Mozilla is to get a sizeable userbase and encourage developers to avoid writing for IE only then the first thing they should do is make it easy for the common computer user to do this sort of stuff without having to resort to editing text files.
Once they have to do that, then you lose and IE will continue to reign.
Re:Question about typeaheadfind (Score:4, Insightful)
Good point, but remember that this is the first time we see this feature. I wouldn't expect it to be finished yet (and if you can't live with non finished stuff - don't run betas). I can't speak for the Mozilla team of course, but being a GUI Application developer, I can tell that sometimes you choose between implementing a feature and providing a rough interface to it, or not implementing it at all - as providing a nice "user friendly" (whatever that means) interface would take twice, three or a hundred times longer.
I would expect there to be a nice point and click interface by the time this leaves beta...
Moral of the story: Patience
UI Not needed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Question about typeaheadfind (Score:3, Informative)
Well, why don't you type "about:config" in your Mozilla location bar. By your argument, there should be pointy-clicky stuff for all 1100+ configurable parameters in Mozilla. Implement that, and Mozilla turns into something like Microsoft Word or the Windows Control Panel (shit everywhere piled under menu upon menu).
Trust me, it is a good thing that Mozilla doesn't put everything in the GUI. Be thankful that the configuration is in a plain text file and not some binary GUI database or, worse, the Registry.
It'd be nice if they DOCUMNENTED it... (Score:3, Interesting)
If I'm wrong about this, and there is complete documentation on all the prefs files, I'd love to know about it.
GTK on Phoenix (Score:3, Informative)
Link prefetching abuse? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Link prefetching abuse? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Link prefetching abuse? (Score:4, Informative)
BTW your greedy web master can already just include a hidden IFRAME with SRC pointing to the click-through, which WILL send a referrer, so Mozilla's prefetching adds no new danger here.
Wow - what a bummer (Score:3, Informative)
Still digging, but it won't even start? Sheesh.
Mozilla's feature flood (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know about you, but at least my opinion is that the browser software has suffered from some serious stagnation during the past years. Since Internet Explorer 4.0 and its CSS and "DHTML" (mostly Javascript+CSS) support, I haven't seen much development in the browsers at all. Opera was innovative with mouse gestures, but I think the browser that truly turns this stagnation of browser features that's often limited to things like "slightly better CSS support", etc is Mozilla. I'm not even sure how it's possible for the team to bring so many new features in such a short time. Is it a side effect from being open source with browser enthusiasts working on it day and night? Is it "just" because a very flexible and well written code base? An efficient organization of the mozilla developers? A combination?
IMHO, the changes in Mozilla from a late version such as 1.0 are surely larger (at least more useful) than the changes since Internet Explorer 4.0. Each new version is right now bringing lots of new features. Perhaps that will change in the future, but I'll enjoy it while it lasts for sure.
Re:Mozilla's feature flood (Score:3, Interesting)
All of those things. I think type ahead find was written by an open source contributor (of course the module owners helped out, as with most Moz features). Mozilla is very very easy to hack on, as it's very componentized and large parts of it are just text files (xml/js/css). And finally they've been doing stuff like code review, super review, commit for a while so they are pretty slick about it.
Some problems (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe delaying a release and all new features for a short time to fix existing bugs would be worth it. My $.02.
Some Tricks To Make Upgrading Easier (Score:5, Informative)
user_pref("browser.bookmarks.file", "C:\\Documents and Settings\\userdude\\Application Data\\Mozilla\\Profiles\\default\\wx4vqyna.slt\\b
In addition, you can share plugins by adding the following line to your environment. Her is an example of what I did on my Windows box:
MOZ_PLUGIN_PATH = "C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Share\Plugin" (in Environment Variables on Win2k)
Really helps so you don't have to redo plugins all the time and you can share one bookmark file for all!
JOhn
Doesn't work with Windows Proxy servers (Score:3, Interesting)
please vote for this bug [mozilla.org] (99 votes so-far, lets make it 100)
so that me and anyone else who uses microsoft proxy server 2 or any NTLM authenticating proxy can use mozilla. (this is probably a few million people, and a lot of corporations)
This bug has been there since 2000-01-11, and won't make 1.2, hopefully it'll make 1.3 alpha 1!!!
Re:Doesn't work with Windows Proxy servers (Score:3, Interesting)
Because every time someone posts any Mozilla related story to Slashdot they get, well, slashdotted. Considering it's a DB driven site, it doens't take all that much to drive the server to it's knees and make it unusable. So for a day or so, they can't use a basic productivity tool. Yeah, you can just copy n paste, but this minor increase in effort probably eliminates all the casual clickthroughs.
Another major unfixed bug (Score:3, Informative)
That's been outstanding for most of a year now, which is inexcusable for a major bug that causes data loss and crashes. The Mozilla team still has way too many "don't do that" items in the release notes. [mozilla.org]
Unless this thing gets cleaned up, it's never going to get market share. Adding additional features of very marginal utility won't help. Could AOL use Mozilla as their standard browser? No way. It's got to just work.
Prefetching & Standards Complience (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a not nit-pick, but with all the touting of how 100% standards compliant Mozilla is, I'm wondering what the philosophy is on extending the standard, if "preload" isn't in some later HTML standard that I don't yet know about us.
viewing selection source... (Score:3, Informative)
How do I save installed XUL stuff? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hooray! (Score:4, Informative)
Nice feature.
Re:1.2 beta still has bugs that was meant for 1.0. (Score:3, Funny)
> WTF?
The war Bugzilla vs Slashdot sadly had this unfortunate outcome. We will have to live with it. But I'm sure you'll find a way to circumvent the problem. But then again, you're circumventing Bugzilla's access protection and you'll surely be a DMCA case.
Re:How much memory will it use with my MAC OSX (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cautionary e-mail tale (Score:3, Informative)
How long ago did you have this problem? To my knowledge, it's been fine for over a year.
Use / to find non-linked text (Score:4, Informative)